“Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-16 has the right balance. When the Supreme Court of Canada rules that a piece of legislation is outside of the Constitution or the charter, it overrules the law and mandatory minimums in place. Bill C-16 re-establishes a number of the minimum sentences that have been overruled in the past by having that particular clause in it. That clause allows the judiciary the independence of being able to then provide the explanation. I appreciate the way the member brought it forward. The Conservative solution to the issue is to use the notwithstanding clause, on an ongoing basis, an unlimited number of times. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on using the notwithstanding clause.”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 96 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 6%Thanks 7%Claims 64%Reasoning 22%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 8 wordsI do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, ProcedureThanks · 9 wordsbut my colleague is right to raise this issue.ThanksClaims · 54 wordsI do not think it would be appropriate to return to mandatory minimum sentences that leave no room for discretion.For one, this would run counter to the ruling the Supreme Court has already handed down on this matter.1I have no objection to going back to the Supreme Court several times if necessary, Reasoning · 23 wordsbut constantly doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of obtaining a different result seems a bit odd to me.Claims · 29 wordsMoreover, I believe that our society is better off with mandatory minimum sentences that allow for exceptions.I disagree with a rigid framework that does not allow for exceptions, Reasoning · 6 wordsas that can lead to injustices.